Imagined is the key word here. I would be willing to sell you meteor protection insurance for your car for a small fee of $10 a month. If your car is destroyed by a meteor (which are known to hit the earth often). Worst case scenario is you have no car.

By your logic above you would be foolish not to buy my meteor insurance.

Disclaimer: Only damaged caused by meteors is covered. It is the customers responsibility to prove that any damage to insured vehicles is the result of meteor impacts.  


Because I am not suggesting we make laws requiring everyone buy meteor insurance. If I was I would expect people to demand I prove this was needed with some comprehensive risk/benefit analysis.

Completely separate issues it would not be rational to conflate them.
In fact one could even argue that to do so would have made me a myopic dimwit and insane.

 

I have likewise been very impressed by the community.

I first came across some of the concepts discussed up-thread in a few months back.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342007.0

Since then the OP has managed to convert about a third of the audience to his point of view.
That is impressive considering that the initial reception was so poor and he was battling against entrenched views.

Regardless of the OP plans for his own alt coin. I think a critical mass has been obtained and market has is now primed. I know that I personally will be taking a very close look all upcoming alt-coins with strong built in anonymity.

So where is this detailed and comprehensive risk assessment?
I would want to see one both comprehensive evaluating all costs (to the best of human ability) of AGW as well as the benefits of AGW for cold areas of the globe. It should also model the effects of waiting to address this issue for 10,20,50 years and then dealing with it.

If it does not exist why are we taxing global industry via Kyoto Protocol in the absence of compelling data?

Also I would argue that choice #1 as presented above downplays the seriousness of attempting to regulate/reduce all human greenhouse emissions. This is a guaranteed drag on the world economy at a time when the world economy is already pretty sickly.


AnonyMint I greatly respect your intellect (I started this post to explore your ideas after all). Noise, however, while very provocative and often amusing is nevertheless fundamentally just noise.

This is not a moderated thread and thus all parties are free to post anything they want. However, as noise tends to lower the overall quality of the conversation I do kindly ask all parties try and keep it to a minimum.

Egoist Anarchist do.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism

Like the fringe environmentalists advocating massive culling of the population every movement has its fair share of crazies.

Agreed.

Similarly if a theory or philosophy requires that we eliminate all top-down imposed constraints on human behavior, then we know:

• It is facetious because the the removal of all top-down "authority" can't be accomplished.
• Thus it must be a wolf in sheepskin.
• It is insane.

 

Just make sure they are innocent first. Plenty of cases with people who fully deserve the wrath of the state.

We have shown that some top down imposed order can never be completely eliminated. Some constraint is needed on any dynamic system (in this case human society).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4897280#msg4897280

We also agree the socialism is likely to overshoot before stabilizing in it's proper diminishing role.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=365141.msg4941493#msg4941493

I think you are picking the wrong fight in going to battle against conservationism.
The areas conservationist focus on managing public use goods such as fisheries, wildlife management (sustainable hunting), water, soil conservation and sustainable forestry (on public lands) are the areas most likely to need some top down management for the immediate future. The free market has not yet developed robust ways to deal with these problems.

The risks above (e.g. megadeath, culling the population, taxing above the Laffer limit, etc) result from across the board growth of collectivism to unsustainable levels leading to potential systemic collapse (a transition into an unbounded dynamic system).

The solution is not to attack every instance of socialism (as some are needed), but to find a way to limit socialism so that it cannot grow to the point where that growth threatens the entire system. Small localized Coasian barriers are not problematic as these can be gradually unwound once a free market solution is developed. It is systemic instability that is the true danger.

Environmentalism especially on its fringes has some wacky ideas. These folks are much more deserving of scorn. However, even here there is the potential for common ground. Many environmentalist advocate sustainability above all else. I suspect if they understood the economic ideas discussed up-thread some would be supportive.  


I will be honest that in this area I am a complete lay person. I have not read any of the leaked e-mails in question nor have I read any of the primary literature.

Has the climate literature made a convincing case that

A) The economic costs of warming exceed the benefits. (Lots of cold areas that will benefit from a little warming)
B) We should tackle this now instead of in the future. (Technology will be much better in the future and the costs to reduce human impact less burdensome)

If the answer is yes I will have to educate myself further and consider revising my undecided stance. If not the point is somewhat moot so I probably won't bother.

 


 
 

QueenElizabeth as an economist I would be very interested in your thoughts on the economic ideas/concepts discussed in the thread below.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0

It's a very long read but I think you would find it worth your time.

I associate with the economic theory discussed in this thread which calls for anarchism in balance with and constrained by socialism.  I believe it is this combination in optimal/neutral equilibrium that is needed to achieve maximal progress and prosperity.

Anarchism limits socialism <--> Socialism constrains anarchism


Lacking a better term I am calling it neutralism for now. I suppose that would make me a neutralist.

My leader

Perhaps we should define our terms I am referring to the type of conservationism advocated by Sylva in 1664 who predates Rockefeller.

Calling anthropogenic global warming a fraud is a very strong statement. It implies that the evidence conclusively shows that humans are not in any way contributing to increasing temperatures. You are voluntarily shifting the burden of proof. Unless the fraud you are referring to is the political push to tax industry regardless of the cause of the current warming. In this case your statement is overly terse.

This is interesting to me as I used to be a global warming believer. I never had a chance to look into the data myself and global warming seemed to be the consensus view of the experts in the area.

I looked up Sallie Baliunas (the astrophysicist who argued that global warming was due to cyclical variations in the sun rather then human activity). What really stood out to me was what happened after she published her 2003 article on the subject.


The reaction is perhaps as important as the paper itself. Events like this and the outright censorship of climate skeptics I have seen elsewhere are major red flags that objective discourse has broken down.

So I changed my opinion to undecided.

Could humanity be causing some global warming? Temperatures are warmer now then they have been in the recent past so it is possible. However, to become a global warming alarmist I would need convincing proof of the following.

1) That humans are responsible for the current warming and it is not due to sun activity or random variation. (This answer to this should become more clear with time)
2) The economic costs of warming exceed the benefits. (Lots of cold areas that will benefit from a little warming)
3) We should tackle this now instead of in the future. (Technology will be much better in the future and the costs to reduce human impact less burdensome)

I am a conservationist. I believe it is important to protect and preserve natural resources for their continued sustainable use by humans. Much of modern environmentalism (the bloated descendant of conservationism) seems to have forgotten the human component. This is part of the reason why everyone hates environmentalist but you will be hard pressed to find people who hate conservationist.

Fair enough. We both agree that both the government coin and the crypto coin should do well. Exactly how well and for how long is not that relevant to the topic at hand.
  

I choose both. Hard to know exactly how fast the knowledge economy will grow or exactly how hard the crash from the debt bubble will be. Best to hedge and invest in both.

I am not yet convinced that bitcoin's network effects (while real) are insurmountable. Its status as top centralized coin is vulnerable from the ground up, via, a significantly more nimble competitor, (perhaps a CPU only coin without anonymity). It is also vulnerable from top down via a cryptosystem rolled out by the banks/governments/corporations.  Nevertheless, it is definitely a serious contender to take the position of top centralized/government coin. If it become clear that bitcoin will take this role I will buy a few.  


 

I also think a bifurcated future is likely.

One currency for the physical economy (government coin) that is not anonymous (pseudo-anonymity the government can easily breach will be tolerated).
Another currency for the knowledge economy (crypto coin) anonymous and untraceable.

There is likely only to be one big winner in each category. Both of these winners look poised to do incredibly well.  Remember to keep you records in order if you invest in the bank coin. The taxman will be along shortly to take his huge chunk.

My question for any developer of an altcoin (especially one with new and innovative features like anonymity) is why not try to capture both markets? Why not release a government coin version and a crypto coin version. Just because bitcoin is first does not guarantee it status as the official bank coin of the future.


I imaging we will all need some government coin.
Government coin may be the better short term play. Crypto coin the superior long term investment.

On a comic note people advertising bitcoin gambling in their signatures have been spamming the economics forum posting fantastic insights such as.

"This is so wow"
and
"That is pretty cool"

I am insulted. They spammed the threads above and below this one but didn't post here. Personally I don't see what the problem is. I think economic devastation and gambling are a natural fit  


Welcome to our friendly talk on economic devastation (and related topics). Your first post was far better then mine. I think I posted something meaningless in the newbie jail if I recall.

You might enjoy this thread.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355212.0

Looks like some of the ideas discussed upthread are making it into the mainstream media.

This guy in Forbes is essentially arguing that cryptocurrency is going to bifurcate into an anonymous coin and a bank coin.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/billfrezza/2014/02/07/why-bitcoin-must-die-long-live-bitcoin-2-0/

Makes me wonder if he is reading this forum.

I don't like any of the ones that end in gold. It is not gold and I feel it is disingenuous.
Don't care for Moola as a prefix either.

I like the endings bit and coin (bit might be preferable because there are going to but a crazy ton garbage altcoins that end in coin in the near future)

You might want to consider the .net names. They may open up some additional alternatives.
You don't need a .com or .org name to succeed.

Just look at minecraft.net

I also like the .net domain for cryptocurrency because the net is what they are all about.

Ok I am pulling out of this dispute (not my fight and I regret getting involved)

For the record my own potential biases are as follows.
1) I own no bitcoins and thus I am more likely to be more supportive of something new.
2) A lot of my personal income is indirectly derived from socialism and the social safety net.

Where I stand on the multiple disputes discussed so far is as follows.

A) Overall economic theory regarding Knowledge Age:
In Agreement: After spending much time reviewing this I find the theory sound

B) Technical critique of Bitcoins flaws:
Undecided: I don't have sufficient technical knowledge of bitcoin to judge for myself. All those who do have said knowledge have either an agenda or a vested interest.

C) Need for Anonyminity:
In Agreement (reluctantly): This has some major major downsides but I have been unable to think of a better solution to the power vacuum.

D) Regarding existence of a power elite:
Extremely Skeptical: The post with all the links was an challeng to my argument that they do not exist. As it was a response to my challenge I will read them all (sigh) and see if that changes my mind... eventually (probably not this week).

Blablahblah is naturally opposed to you because your arguments (at least the economic ones) are based in materialism. He is clearly of the idealist school of thought. To agree with you across the board would essentially be the equivalent of accepting materialism as correct (not going to happen). Lot's of very intelligent idealists out there.

Practicaldreamer is obviously a man of faith and you have posted quite few things not entirely supportive of religion. Very hard to get anywhere with him starting from that.

Rassah owns a lot of Bitcoins.

What I see are three intelligent individuals with differing agendas/philosophical outlooks.